Success Factors for Enterprise Systems in the Higher Education Sector: A Case Study

International Journal of Engineering Science Invention
ISSN (Online): 2319 – 6734, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 6726
www.ijesi.org ||Volume 5 Issue 2|| February 2016 || PP.46-61
www.ijesi.org 46 | Page
Success Factors for Enterprise Systems in the Higher Education
Sector: A Case Study
Ahmad A. Rabaa‟i1
, John G. Gammack2
1
(Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, College of Arts and Sciences/American
University of Kuwait, Kuwait)
2
(College of Technological Innovation/Zayed University, UAE)
ABSTRACT: Many large organisations have moved to Enterprise System solutions in recent years, including
the higher education sector (HES). Whilst the benefits of Enterprise systems are well known, the sector has a
social mission and characteristics that do not necessarily map to a commercially-focused corporate
conceptualization, and assessing the suitability of any particular enterprise solution requires a qualified set of
criteria to be applied. This paper looks at an “essential set” of critical success factors (CSFs) relevant to
enterprise systems in the HES and applies them in a case study of a large Australian University. The CSFs
found to be most relevant to successful ES deployment show differences from CSFs reported in other studies,
mainly those in commercial sectors, suggesting a sector based approach be taken to evaluating ES success. We
generalise our practical findings to theory, and propose further theory development and validation through
confirmatory case studies and specific hypothesis testing.
KEYWORDS-Critical Success Factors, CSFs, Enterprise Systems, Higher Education
I. INTRODUCTION
Enterprise systems (ES) are large, integrated software packages that support a comprehensive range of
business processes. Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERPs), a dominant subclass that evolved from
manufacturing resource planning systems, typically includes modules with processes for finance, HR, Customer
Relationship Management and other relevant functional areas, and uses centralized data and utilities to identify
analytical information and business intelligence that supports planning, decision making and improved
operations organization-wide. Still growing, the market size of this type of software in 2013 was around $US25
billion, with SAP and Oracle the dominant players (Gartner research, reported in Columbus, 2014) although
there are many specialized vendors also in this market. Both larger and smaller players offer solutions targeted
at specific industry sectors, with products and processes designed to target niche segments.
The general benefits of ES are well known, and this has made them attractive, particularly to larger
organisations with complex operations, diverse information systems and large amounts of data. The centralized
database gives “a single point of truth”, the integration of processes means sharing is fast and accurate (e.g.
linking retail forecasts and point of sale data with a supplier‟s planning systems), and replacing islands of
information trapped in inconsistent or incompatible legacy systems by a centralized enterprise-wide system has
clear efficiency and other advantages. In an early paper Shang and Seddon (2000) discuss five categories of
benefits, including operational, managerial, strategic, IT infrastructure and organizational; benefits that still
apply today (Zeng et al, 2012).
Adopting an ES, however, is a major, long-term investment, and not always a successful one.
Ownership of an Enterprise System is a risky and “high cost proposition” involving numerous indirect as well as
direct costs (Umble, Haft and Umble, 2003). Disruptions to projects and processes, job and role reassignments,
change management and technical transition arrangements are all necessarily implicated. ES are expensive to
begin with, and considerably more money must be spent to configure and implement within an organization,
frequently taking a year or more before effective operation, and longer to see return on investment. Disruption to
staff and resistance to received “best practices”, together with required training, data mapping, customizations
and their support, complexity of integration with remaining legacy systems are all commonly reported, and are
often ongoing issues post-implementation.
Such difficulties can be more than pain or inconvenience: reports consistently note that the majority of
ERP implementations fail, with cost and schedule overruns, non-realisation of benefits, failure to recoup costs,
and satisfaction below 50% on various dimensions (Krigsman, 2013). The suitability of an ES for adoption is a
risky and complex decision, and as Shaul and Tauber (2013, p.11) note, the focus of most ES is on “maximum
integration of information flows and standardization, and therefore are less suitable for firms that have
decentralized, nonhierarchical structures and non-uniform cultures”.

Success Factors for Enterprise Systems In The Higher...
These considerations mean it is relevant to closely consider the factors involved in a successful
adoption, and several studies have sought to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) involved in ES
implementation and (less frequently) subsequent performance. In this paper we first review some of this work,
then its applicability to our more specific focus on CSFs in the higher education sector, which we argue has
properties that, despite increasing corporatization in recent years, imply a more specialized set of CSFs. We
consider existing work in this narrower field and critically apply this set against a representative case (a large
Australian university) to determine the utility of the proposed CSF set.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature on CSFs in Enterprise Systems is extensive. It is not our intention to review it
comprehensively here but rather to assess it towards identifying which CSFs are especially applicable to a
particular market segment, the Higher Education sector, which we will argue has unique features in this context.
Numerous CSFs have been proposed regarding ERP implementation. From an early literature review
Nah et al (2001) found 11 factors critical to implementation success whilst another influential set of 22 CSFs
was identified by Somers and Nelson (2001), also focusing on implementation stages. Several essential CSFs
have been turned into valid and measurable constructs covering both technical and organizational factors
(Bhatti, 2005), Many studies around this time detailed other specific CSFs applicable in implementation, but
lacked attention to stakeholder perspective and change management aspects (Finney and Corbett, 2007).
Subsequent lists by Finney and Corbett (26 CSFs, grouped into strategic and tactical) and by Ngai et al (2008),
whose “global” literature review identified 18 CSFs including 80 subfactors) benchmark a core set found in
other recent studies (e.g. Ram and Corkindale, 2014) who list 14 organizational CSFs, compared to 6 technical
factors, 12 project management and 14 individual user factors in separate categories.
Classifications of CSFs have also been offered to identify key areas at different stages of planning or
implementation. Some of this work is discussed in Finney and Corbett (2007), but efforts are fragmented and
time-bound. Common however is a recognition that ERP adoption is not simply another IT project. One
distinction consistently evident in the literature is between operational / technical factors, (appropriate to the IT
implementation aspect), and organizational / cultural factors, (related to the management, process change and
uptake aspects) with the organizational factors more critical to success. Organisational factors constitute 8 of the
“top 10” CSFs (Ahmad and Pinedo-Cuenca, 2013), and based on the interaction impact among these factors, the
most critical to success were cultural change, management support, and use of consultants, factors most
applicable at the crucial stages of adaptation and acceptance.
A technically successful “implementation” however is meaningless without also considering
subsequent performance output (Ram and Corkindale, 2014). These authors analysed 236 refereed papers on
CSFs for ERPs published between 1998-2010 to examine how critical specifically proposed factors really were
to success. They found relatively few empirical investigations that directly related CSFs either to
implementation or to post-implementation success and indeed they question the validity and utility of many
proposed CSFs. This echoes both research by Chang (2012) who found general agreement that for
manageability the number of CSFs should be low and Rockart‟s (1979, p. 85) seminal definition of CSFs as
"The limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive
performance for the organization. They are the few key areas where things must go right…”
An earlier paper by this team (Ram et al, 2013) tabulated the relationships found in the literature
between CSFs and implementation or performance output success to identify four factors consistently emerging
as central, namely project management, training and education, business process re-engineering and system
integration. Their empirical study found that whilst training/education and system integration factor were critical
for output performance, the former two (organizational) CSFs were essential for implementation success.
This work was done in Australia, which Ram et al (2013, p. 170) note has a “mature IT resources and
infrastructure”. One general feature of research on CSFs for ERPs is that case studies are necessarily localized
and context dependent, and not all factors will apply to all organisations. The various meta-analyses of CSFs
(e.g.Shaul and Sauber, 2013), cross-industry and cross-project comparisons (e.g. Soja, 2008) and comparison
across sector-based cases (e.g. Snider et al, 2009) however allow a finer analysis of more specifically applicable
CSFs.
Sector specific CSFs are illustrated in Ziemba and Oblak (2013), who examine ERPs in public
administration. They note that typically heavily regulated and complex process flows mean process management
is both more complex and has “a completely different character than in business organisations”(p5). ERPs are
used for supporting, rather than for core processes. Whilst several CSFs were in common with established lists
for business enterprises, two new groups of CSFs were identified as applicable to the public administration
sector. Similarly in the hospitality industry Azevedo et al (2013) found that ERPs did not cover many processes
in the sector, requiring separate application development, and non-integration across the organization in real
time was also a problem. These affected two CSFs (quality of customer service and continual process

improvement). Again, ERPs were effectively restricted to back office support processes and problematic in
supporting core services. In a study of end-users in the Arab education sector Al Kilani et al (2013) found that
technical readiness was less problematic than employee readiness and in institutions using ERPs views
expressed on ROI were negative, as “processes (were not facilitated but had become) more complicated” and
had still to be done in “both ERP and hardcopy”. Despite recognising that some maturity differences exist
between the Arab world and the West meantime, Al Kilani et al note some specific (US) successes and make
recommendations to increase utilization in the UAE and Arab world more generally, exemplifying a widespread
“belief in the solution” despite known challenges (see Rabaa‟i, Bandara& Gable, 2009).
Our focus in this paper is on ES in the higher education sector, specifically using Australia as
representative of a mature adopter. As medium or large organisations, universities and similar academic
institutions worldwide have common issues of service delivery, record keeping, facilities management, billing,
tracking, inventory management, increasingly performed through online and technology supported processes. In
recent times globalization, growth and legislation has forced a reshaping of traditional tertiary education models
towards increased corporatization and market competitiveness: historically concerns from which university
processes and practices have largely been immune. Such pressures have obliged universities to seek greater
management and operational efficiencies, and parallel a rise in for-profit providers, albeit whose academic
credentials are widely mistrusted (Economist, 2013). Management efficiency has frequently been attempted
through ES adoptions. Before describing our case study, we outline some of the relevant literature to
characterize Higher Education as a unique sector.
Von Hellens et al., (2005) collected several studies in the academic sector and showed that the
packaged and modular nature of ES is problematic for universities, as they must either adjust their business
processes to fit the system, or customise the system to fit the organisation‟s business processes. The academic
culture in four UK universities, for example, made it particularly hard to implement ERP systems (Allen and
Kern, 2001), supporting Shaul and Tauber‟s observation noted earlier that ES are less suited to the decentralised,
non-hierarchical, and non-uniform cultures typical in academia.
Detailing the case of resistance to the introduction of an integrated student information management
system, Noble and Newman (1993) use the term “organizational invalidity” to describe when a technology does
not fit organizational structures. They report considerable implementation difficulty caused by the technology‟s
poor match with the University‟s loosely co-ordinated and highly differentiated structure. This point is
reinforced by Heiskanen et al (2000) who detail the resistance and conflict involved between procurement of a
centralised vs. a decentralized solution to student records , which, with other cases they describe, imply the
unsuitability of ERPs to university culture. National culture also complicates matters: both Rabaa‟i and
Gammack in the case of Jordan (2008) and Davison (2002) in the case of Hong Kong report cultural factors
militating against a “one size fits all” approach to ERP adoption.
Oliver and Romm (2000) questioned why universities wanted to adopt ERP systems, and found little
attention being paid to core activities of teaching and research. Their study was limited to public data collected
through Web sites of ERP projects at universities in the United States and Australia, but their critical perspective
on the justifications offered therein highlights the privileging of technology over people and a largely imitative
justification for adoption.
Similarly “We are not that silly” was an indicative response on ERP adoption in Australian Universities
but soon afterwards Australian Universities adopting ERPs were at “saturation” (Nielsen et al, 2005). ERPS not
having being designed for universities originally, McConachie (2001) found that although university staff
wanted a new system they feared the complexity of an ERP system. Failures and cost blowouts have been
reported both in Australia (e.g. UNSW, Adelaide University, and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) and
in the United States (e.g. Cleveland State University, University of Minnesota, Ohio State University) (see
Rabaai, 2009). Other researchers (e.g. Brown, 2002; Madden, 2002, Beekhuyzen et al., 2002) have also reported
on factors that limited the successful implementations of ERP system projects in the higher education sector,
such as lack of training, unclear visioning, and user-role changes.
Elsewhere, Mahrer (1999) investigated the antecedents and impact of a successful ERP system
implementation in a Swiss university, and concluded that strong communication and coherence between the
departments in the university was the main success factor. Such is, however, not always the case in the sector:
ineffective system and data coordination across departments is a major reason for failure in the Australian
university context (Beekhuyzen, 2006). In addition, many universities are multi-campus, and often each campus
has its own culture, bringing extra implementation issues, including cutover strategy choice. A fundamental
issue is balance between corporate standardization and local optimization (Umble et al., 2003), where site-
specific cultures and processes, perhaps treasured, are common. Jackson (2011) describes the critical influence
of organizational culture on IS adoption, detailing a failed enterprise–wide implementation in a multi-campus
higher education college in the UK.

By contrast Tapp et al (2005) describe the value of ERPs to academic administrators from a case
concerning their 62-campus Kentucky Community and Technical College System. Whilst reporting gains in
back office and other support processes their respondents were notably all administrators, and no views were
reported from academics at the core. A similar limitation applies to Kalema et al‟s (2014) survey of integrated
tertiary software users at (mainly) African Universities. They acknowledge that perceptions may not be
representative of university users as their participants were mainly team leaders. Beekhuyzen‟s (2006) study
analysed ERP use quality factors from an academic user perspective, for an eventually abandoned Australian
implementation. She suggests successful acceptance would be more likely with more attention given to user
needs in development and implementation, noting this is rare in the literature.
Many practicing academics are deeply concerned with the impact of ES and corporate norms on the
core mission and practices of the Higher Education sector. For example Harris (2014) describes how pro-
corporatization legislation in Australia has forced its universities to adopt “trading corporation” governance
rules that are incompatible with a university‟s social mission. Recently prevailing neo-liberalist policy sees
universities as a “competing service enterprise” at the cost of their long traditions. Harris shows the prescience
of Musselin‟s (2005) analysis of an agenda that “weakens deliberative bodies and collegial decision making” in
favour of developing executive leadership.
The collegiate nature of traditional universities and the discipline specific practices and norms
associated with the traditional core functions of teaching, research and public service do not fit well with a
corporate view e.g. of “research output” as a KPI that is simplistically quantifiable and manageable. In the HES
very few studies have examined post-implementation performance and satisfaction and those that have done
have typically focussed on benefits to administrative users. A recent study in an Indonesian private university
across administrative and academic stakeholders found that their enterprise wide higher education information
system “was not at the level required by University management” (p418), and whilst never exceeding
expectations across a balanced scorecard the “user orientation” perspective scored lower than the other three
components. This led to specific recommendations to involve users more in determining requirements, tailor
data to their needs, provide manuals and help and make menus usable. One Pakistani university also recently
used a balanced scorecard approach and found that while some classes of users were reasonably satisfied, others
were less so. Again specific recommendations to improve interdepartmental and functional area support were
made.
In a UK university example, Pollok and Cornford (2004) have noted the tensions in applying the
“generic” corporate enterprise model to the “unique” university and examines the role of ERP in “refashioning
the identity” of universities and their management processes. They argue that the idea of some uniquely
configured and trivially customizable set of ERP modules and ready-made processes of “universal applicability”
does not apply to universities. This view is supported by Cunningham et al., (1998) who observed early that
ERP design assumptions do not always fit with university operations, and by Heiskanen et al, (2000) whose
studies suggest that industry best practice standards in ERP packages are inappropriate for HE institutions, due
to the unique “impossible-to-model” structures and decision-making processes common in the sector. The
“distinctive challenges” in ERP implementation between corporate and university environment were considered
using comparative case studies by Seo (2013), reporting MIT‟s ERP implementation, and showing how the
various autonomous departments, labs and centres had unique processes that did not fit a single standardization,
citing how MIT spent 3 months trying to agree how a purchase order would be handled.
To look at the view of university processes implied by the dominant ERP provider illustrates a schism
between corporate mentality and academic praxis. “Enhance student services, streamline research processes, and
deepen benefactor relationships – with higher education & research solutions from SAP” and “Deliver superior
commercial and non-commercial research results. And get ready to take your institution‟s reputation and
ranking to the next level.” This solution is clearly marketed with respect to a managerial agenda rather than an
understanding of the actual processes involved, but is likely to reframe research activity around gaming the KPIs
imposed by administrators.
Given such considerations the CSFs that apply to success in the Higher Education sector are likely to
concern not just technical complexity but rather specific organizational and cultural factors. Some of the
organisational factors are likely to be at odds with the embedded worldview of many ERP providers, whilst to
the extent that routine management processes are enhanced and IT support is more effective, some operational
and technical factors are also likely to apply. These will be examined in the next section.
III. THE RESEARCH METHOD
We first identify a central set of CSFs applicable to the sector then apply a case study approach using a
large Australian university as a representative case for testing our set of identified CSFs. Case studies provide
rich and detailed insights, which aid understanding and suggest wider theoretical issues for testing. Cases must
be carefully chosen to achieve this, in particular they may be chosen to be representative of a wider category,

and thus of general interest to comparable cases, or prototypical, inasmuch as the insights they generate are
relevant to others on a similar path, but less advanced. Our selected case is Queensland University of
Technology (QUT), detailed further in the next section. To the extent that QUT is a leading university in
enterprise system adoption and also that Australia represents a relatively mature ERP market, our study also
serves as a prototypical case, suggesting lessons for emerging adopters.
The specific set of CSFs has also been deliberately chosen, and distinguishes major organization-
related factors (e.g. top management support), project-related factors (e.g. training) technological/ERP-related
factors (e.g. customization) and individual-related factors (Post-implementation evaluation) to identify a core
set of 11 CSFs (Table 1).
This set is consistent with other CSF sets in the literature, but omits less frequent CSFs to allow greater
generic applicability, and remain true to Rockart‟s (1979) original definition. The core set has also been
informed by original studies of leading IS journals and database sources by the first author (Rabaa‟i, 2009), and
more recently by Kalema et al, (2014). These reviews independently established citation counts of CSFs as
shown in Table 1, matched for content equivalence, and in line with Ram and Corkindale‟s (2014) classification
both reviews identify organizational and technical categories of CSF.
CSF
Citation frequency
(Rabaa’i, 2009)
Citation frequency
(Kalema et al, 2014)
Organizational
Top management support 28 49
Change management 28 48
Visioning and planning 15 6
Technological
BPR andcustomization 21 45
Project related
Project management 24 28
Training 20 29
System and consultant selection 14 17
System integration 11 16
Communication plan 13 28
Team composition 17 35
Individual-related
Post-implementation evaluation 10 13
Table 1: CSFs used in the case study
Of these top management support, visioning, and change management are key organizational CSFs,
BPR andcustomization is a technologically-related CSF1
, project management, training,system and consultant
selection, system integration communication plan and team composition are project related CSFs and post-
implementation evaluation is individual-related2
.
3.1 Description of the Identified Critical Success Factors (CSFs)
3.1.1 Top Management Support
One of the most cited critical success factors in an ERP implementation is top management support and
commitment. Davenport (1998: 130) has posited that “if the development of an enterprise system is not carefully
controlled by management, management may soon find itself under the control of the system”. Additionally,
Sarker and Lee (2003) empirically proved that strong and committed leadership at the top management level is
essential to the success of an ERP implementation. Top management commitment and support referred to the
need for management to anticipate any glitches that might be encountered (Motwani et al., 2002) and the need
for senior management who would be involved in the strategic planning, but who are also technically orientated
(Yusuf et al., 2004). Al-Mashari et al. (2003) stated that top management support and commitment should not
stop at the initiation and facilitation stage, but should extend to the full implementation of the ERP system.
The implementation of an ERP system must be viewed as a high priority project by top management
(Shanks et al. 2000), as the system will change how the organisation does its business. Glaser (1999) claimed
that senior management must demonstrate their commitment by showing strong leadership, limiting the initial
1
Whilst CSFs in each area are represented, the technological factors such as data accuracy and conversion are unlikely to be
different across sectors.
2
Similarly factors specific to users and performance KPIs will necessarily be contextual and localized.

scope of the project, and working towards achieving an early success. Top management commitment to the
project is necessary to ensure the success of the system, otherwise the project is most likely to fail or fail to
deliver the full range of benefits forecasted (Beheshti, 2006). In addition, Bingi et al. (1999) posited that an
overall organisational commitment could be obtained if top managements conveyed their commitment across all
organisational levels. The resulting organisational commitment, which should be well defined and visible, will,
in turn, ensure the successful implementation of the ERP project (Umble and Umble, 2002).
3.1.2 Change Management
Change management is the other most widely cited critical success factor. According to Nah et al.,
(2001), the change management concept refers to the need for the implementation team to formally prepare a
change management program, and be conscious of the need to consider the implications of such projects
(Bingiet al., 1999). It was estimated that 50% of the organisations that implemented an ERP system failed to
achieve the intended benefits because managers undervalued the efforts needed to successfully manage the
changes that took place (Pawlowsiki and Boudreau, 1999).
It would be impossible to successfully transform an organisation by implementing an ERP system
without adequate consideration for an approach that supports change (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000). Thus,
change management strategies are essential for adapting and deploying ERP systems in organisations to achieve
the desirable outcomes. By comparing one successful and one failed ERP implementations, Motwaniet al.
(2002) found that a project that is supported by top management without appropriate organisational readiness
and adequate change management strategies in place is more likely to fail. By contrast, a cautious, evolutionary
and bureaucratic implementation that is supported by careful change management, network relationships, and
cultural readiness can lead to successful ERP implementation.
The implementation of an ERP system is more than just changing the software or hardware systems; it
will enable the organisation to achieve a higher level of performance through a restructured business process
(Ehie and Madsen, 2005). Bingiet al. (1999) stated that implementing an ERP system involves the re-
engineering of existing business processes to the best business processes standard. Consequently, the
implementation of an ERP system will change the way an organisation conducts its business, and may require
the re-engineering of essential business processes and/or the development of new business processes to support
the organisation‟s goals (Umbleet al., 2003). Therefore, the changes that will take place can lead to resistance,
uncertainty and horror among users of the new system, and employees‟ turnover and employees‟ resistance may
place additional risks on ERP implementation (Grabski and Leech, 2007). Hence, the success in implementing
an ERP system depends on balancing the major conflicts between the organisation and its technology, and
effectively managing its employees in the change process (Ash and Burn, 2003). As such, Hawking et al. (2004)
claimed that ERP system implementations are people-focused projects that depend on the change to achieve
success. Thus, strong ability and flexibility to change as well as the acceptance of new technologies will help in
the implementation process. This can be achieved if top management spread out its vision to change, enlist
employees‟ adherence and readiness to the new system, and ensure they are familiar and satisfied with the
changes that will occur (Motwaniet al., 2002).
3.1.3 Visioning and Planning
The literature has frequently mentioned clear vision, project objectives and project mission as critical
factors for successful ERP implementation projects. Therefore, project requirements, objectives, setting a clear
vision, and a comprehensive project plan should be developed to fit within organisation goals to ensure the
success of an ERP implementation.
Project benefits and goals should be clearly identified, well understood, and tracked (Holland et al.,
1999). Goals should also be measurable (Al-Mashariet al., 2003). On the other hand, the development of
detailed requirements at project inception is essential to ensure successful ERP implementation (Verville and
Halingten, 2002). Otherwise, a misunderstanding of project requirements can lead to project risk or failure.
Hence, a project plan is critical in specifying the benefits, goals, resources, risks, costs, and timelines of the
project (Wee, 2000). For this reason, Mabertet al. (2001) found that successful ERP implementers allocated
significant time before implementing the system in order to develop a playbook or project plan on how an
implementation should be carried out. The project plan provides guidance throughout the implementation
process and allows the project team to keep focused on the project goals and objectives. Thus, project
requirements provide a clear view to what needs to be done during the project, and the project plan provides
detailed steps on what needs to be accomplished in the project (Grabski and Leech, 2007).
In addition, ERP projects should encompass a clear vision and a business plan in order to direct the
implementation process (Al- Mashariet al., 2003; Nah and Delgado, 2006). Moreover, the implementation of
ERP projects requires the creation of a clear and compelling vision of how an organisation should function in
order to achieve the desired outcomes (Umbleet al., 2003). Thereafter, the project plan can be built to support
and improve this vision, because the investment in ERP systems should closely parallel the strategic direction of

an organisation, and be aligned with its vision and future direction (Nah and Delgado, 2006).
3.1.4 Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) and System’s Customisation
Shehab et al., (2004) stated that there are two different strategic approaches to implementing an ERP
system. In the first approach, organisations have to re-engineer the business processes in order to fit the
functionality of the ERP system package. This may entail changes in the essential business processes in which
organisations are conducting their daily tasks, and may result in changing employees‟ responsibilities (e.g.
Holland and Light, 1999; Bingi et al., 1999; Hong and Kim, 2002; Yusuf et al., 2004). The second approach is
the customisation of the ERP system package to fit the existing business processes. However, customisation of
the ERP software package should be avoided, or at least minimised as much as possible, in order to achieve the
full benefits of the ERP system (Shanks et al. 2000; Light, 2001; Bajwa et al. 2004). This is because
customisation will increase the project time, ruin schedules, introduce new bugs into the system, and make the
upgrade to the vendor‟s new released software harder (Shehab et al. 2004). As a result, the term of vanilla ERP
was introduced.
Vanilla ERP means that organisations should be committed to the idea of implementing the “vanilla”
version of an ERP. This is the basic version with no or minimal customisation (Siriginidi, 2000a, b; Somers and
Nelson, 2001, 2004; Nah et al., 2001, Palaniswamy and Frank, 2002, Mabert et al., 2003, Shanks and Parr,
2000).
3.1.5 Project Management
An effective project management is essential for a successful ERP implementation (Umbleet al.2003;
Nah and Delgado, 2006). However, Umble&Umble (2002) have found that managers are often surprised by the
scope, size, and complexity of an ERP implementation and they sometimes fail to initiate the necessary level of
detailed project management planning and control. Kim et al. (2005) listed 47 impediments to a successful ERP
system implementation, and many arose from project management issues. Therefore, the role of the project
manager becomes singularly important in ERP implementation success. Given this information, it is expected
that senior management will not only endorse the changes but they will also provide the necessary support and
resources for the project manager to ensure the success of the implementation.
Implementing an ERP system requires an appropriate project management structure and methodology
(Bingi et al., 1999). However, the author posited that the main reason for an ERP implementation failure stems
from a lack of understanding of the project and an inability to provide guidance and adequate leadership to
project team members. Maber et al., (2001) documented the importance of a project that is well-planned and is
managed very efficiently.
Hence, proper project management and an adequate implementation methodology must be used to
ensure all important project steps are clearly defined and included in the project plan for the system to be
implemented successfully. Moreover, effective project management should contain a clear definition of the
project objectives, the development of a work and resource plans, and a cautious tracking of the project‟s
progress (Laughlin, 1999). Also, a detailed project plan that is linked to the project goals should be defined and
established in the early stages (Holland et al., 1999). This is because a clear project plan and a clear definition of
the project objectives will help organisations to avoid the “scope-creep”, which can blemish the project budget
(Laughlin, 1999). However, the scope of the ERP system must be clearly defined, controlled, and limited
(Umble et al., 2003; Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Bajwa et al., 2004) because scope modification will result in
additional time and costs (Sumner, 1999). In addition, obligations and responsibilities for an ERP system
implementation should be allocated and wisely assigned (Rosario, 2000), to accomplish the required tasks.
Bender et al. (2006) argued that the use of a detailed project plan, that is used to set project deadlines and key
milestones, is an essential element of project success. Deadlines, timelines and the effort needed to accomplish
specific tasks should be realistically estimated and clearly stated (Rosario, 2000; Wee, 2000; Al-Mashari et al.,
2003). For instance, Bender et al. (2006) found a strong relationship between a team‟s ability to achieve project
deadlines and the success of the ERP implementation project.
3.1.6 Training
A large number of researchers have stressed the need to include training as a critical aspect of an
implementation. While some researchers have generally mentioned the need for training, most researchers have
mentioned the need for user training (e.g. Bingi et al., 1999; Kumar et al., 2002; Robey et al., 2002; Trimmer et
al., 2002; Mandal and Gunasekaran, 2003). It has been suggested that the training should encompass the
development of IT skills (Stratman and Roth, 2002; Voordijk et al., 2003; Tarafdar and Roy, 2003) and that it
should be hands-on (Aladwani, 2001).
Appropriate education and training should be provided to users of the new system to ensure they
understand how the system works and how it can help them to perform their daily tasks (Bajwa et al., 2004).
Moreover, the provision of printed and on-line user manuals, tutorials, workshops, and help desks should be
used to support the users and to ensure appropriate understanding of the ERP system functionality. The end-

users and training facilities have received the least amount of attention (Gargeya and Brady, 2005) because the
resources for training and support can be expensive. However, the failure to provide significant resources for
these purposes has seen short-term gains, but end-user ignorance and discontinuance have led to long- term
failure.
3.1.7 System and Consultant Selection
A number of researchers has stressed the need for careful consideration and attention in selecting a
specific ERP system (e.g. Kraemmergaard and Rose, 2002; Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Yusuf et al., 2004; Somers
and Nelson, 2001; 2004). The ERP selection process is a critical process (Hedman and Borell, 2004) and a select
team should be appointed to carry it out (Bernroider and Koch, 2001). According to Davenport (1998),
organisations often fail to consider whether the chosen system will fit their overall business processes and
enable them to avoid, or at least minimise, software customisation. Thus, a detailed requirements specification
for ERP software selection will increase the probability that the ERP system will meet the organisation‟s
requirements and support the newly redesigned operational processes (Grabski and Leech, 2007). Therefore, it is
important that the selected ERP package fits within the organisational needs and supports the organisation‟s
business processes (Somers and Nelson, 2001, Verville et al. 2005, Beheshti, 2006). The various selection
criteria for ERP systems are well-documented in the literature (e.g. Siriginidi, 2000; Chen, 2000). Siriginidi
(2000) addressed several factors to be considered when selecting an ERP system, including: the stability and
history of the ERP vendor, last 12-month track record of ERP sales, implementation support from the vendor,
and improvement in ERP software packages.
ERP consultants can play many different and essential roles in ERP system implementations.
Consultants can help staff the project team, help to back-fill positions, be charged with responsibility for project
management, audit the project, serve as the prime contractor, and be the one source for everything from
software to hardware and personnel for the ERP. Thus, many researchers have supported the need to include an
ERP consultant as part of the implementation team (e.g. Bingi et al., 1999; Motwani et al., 2002; Trimmer et al.,
2002; Skok and Legge, 2002; Bajwa et al., 2004). However, as part of this relationship, it is imperative to
arrange for knowledge transfer from the consultant to the implemented organisation (Al-Mashari et al., 2003) so
as to decrease the dependency on the vendor/consultant (Skok and Legge, 2002).
3.1.8 System Integration
Organisations must fully integrate the ERP systems into their daily operations in order to achieve the
full benefits of the system. Hence, the integration of data from the organisation‟s wider system is essential in
ensuring the successful implementation of an ERP system (e.g. Bingi et al., 1999; Somers and Nelson, 2001).
However, Bingi et al. (1999) posited that, with tight integration, organisations must also be aware of the
potential risks of the errors that might occur in the process.
3.1.9 Communication Plan
Project communication is considered as an essential CSF for ERP implementations. While some
researchers argued the need for communication among various functions/levels (Mandal and Gunasekaran,
2003), other specifically argued the necessity of communication between business and IT personnel (Grant,
2003). Sumner (1999) debated that the communication plan should not just exist between senior management
and project team members. The whole organisation should be aware of the project scope, its objectives and
activities as an effective communication plan will have a direct impact on the success of the change
management program (Mendel, 1999). Communication should take place during regular update meetings, the
distribution of project newsletters or the placement of wall charts in conspicuous locations (Sumner, 1999).
Further, Mendel (1999) stated that strong communication throughout the various stages of the implementation
process is essential in allowing employees to understand what is going on in the project, why change is
necessary, and how it will benefit the organisation. In addition, an effective communication plan will lead to the
development of trust and the exchange of information needed for process changes and the acceptance of the new
technology (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004)
Organisation‟s stakeholders must be informed of the project goals and the expected benefits of the ERP
project as well as its capabilities and the limitations of the ERP system (Holland et al.1999; Al-Mashari et al.
2003; Nah and Delgado, 2006). For instance, Al-Mashari and Al-Mudimigh (2003) argued that the importance
of an effective communication plan relies on the fact that it could build the ability of the entire organisation in
business process reengineering, and gain all stakeholders‟ support and commitment. Al-Mashari and Al-
Mudimigh provided a number of different communication methods to keep all stakeholders informed of new
developments and answering questions about the project implementation by way of newsletters, focus groups,
email and Web-based archives.

3.1.10 Team Composition
It has been repeatedly mentioned throughout the literature that there is a critical need to put in place a
solid, core implementation team that is comprised of the organisation‟s best and brightest individuals.
Additionally, ERP implementation team should consist of representatives from all functional units of the
organisation, from technical experts to senior executives, because the effort and collaboration of technical and
business experts and the system‟s end-users are essential to the success of ERP implementation (e.g. Siriginidi,
2000b; Shanks and Parr, 2000; Nah et al., 2001; Mandal and Gunasekaran, 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004;
Nah and Delgado, 2006).
Bingi et al. (1999) claimed that a key reason for project failure in an ERP implementation is the
inability of an organisation to provide accurate resources for the project. Hence, Bingi emphasised that the right
internal resources should be selected for the project team. Consequently, the implementation of an ERP system
requires the selection of the best employees to be part of the team in order to maximise the chances of a
successful implementation (Bingi et al., 1999; and Siau and Messersmith, 2003). Moreover, Bingi et al.
(1999) stated that the project team members should be familiar with the internal business processes and
with industry best practices. Accordingly, the project team should possess sound business and technical skills
for a successful ERP implementation (Sumner, 1999; Shanks et al. 2000; Somers and Nelson, 2001; Al-Mashari
et al., 2003).
Furthermore, choosing the right implementation team is critical because it will be responsible for
creating the preliminary and full-detailed project plan, project schedules, assigning the required responsibilities
to accomplish a set of tasks, and determining the deadlines (Umble et al. 2003). As such, the team members
should consider the ERP project as their top and only priority and their other workloads should be manageable
(Wee, 2000). They should work full-time on the project (Shanks et al. 2000; Wee, 2000) and the top
management should motivate and reward the team (Wee, 2000). Additionally, trust and authority should be
granted to the team through critical decision-making capability (Shanks et al. 2000).
3.1.11 Post-implementation Evaluation
The CSF of post implementation evaluation follows internal acceptance testing, and incorporates
assessment against specifically agreed performance measures while covering other sub-factors such as user
satisfaction. ERP implementation projects are not complete without the allowance for some kind of post-
implementation evaluation (e.g. Holland and Light, 1999; Nah et al., 2001; Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Tarafdar
and Roy, 2003). However, the post assessment will be difficult to complete unless there had been established
metrics (Ross and Vitale, 2000) or focused performance measures (Umble et al., 2003).
This core set therefore attempts to balance implementation factors (necessary but not sufficient for
success) with the organizational aspects that “must be got right” for performance success. We now describe our
case site and then assess it against this set of CSFs.
3.2 The Case
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is a multi-campus university based in Brisbane,
Australia. With approximately 46,000 enrolled students, almost 11,000 staff and an annual income of about
$900 million in 20133 QUT is a large enterprise whose goal is “To (combine) academic strength with practical
engagement with the world of the professions, industry, government, and the broader community”4.
QUT also has a reputation for adopting latest technologies that support their core and supporting
functions, moving from a paper-based environment in the late 1980s towards a growth-enabling solution
integrating Finance, HR and student systems. Seeing in-house development as a risk and expense QUT quickly
realized that an ERP would meet this requirement. In 1988 a cross-functional team made their selection decision
and a best-of-breed approach mixing ERP and legacy modules was adopted. The business process and required
functionality analysis was done thoroughly, though at the time there were relatively few products available.
Since then QUT has maintained a best-of-breed approach, using consultants as supplementary to a
skilled IT staff, and strategically innovating differentiating customisations that have subsequently become
features within the vendor‟s core product. The strategic trade-off made with best–of-breed is richness of
functionality versus ease of integration and QUT acknowledge that integration work is necessarily required, and
are using web-services to effect real-time integration, for example, of various student services. Further
description of the QUT case is given in Rabaa‟i, Sedera and Gable, (2009). An early and enthusiastic adopter of
enterprise systems, QUT is widely representative of Universities in the Australasian region, who have adopted
ERPs to saturation level and who face similar ongoing operational and strategic issues.
3
See: https://www.qut.edu.au/about/our-university/qut-at-a-glance accessed 5/12/14
4
detailed further at:
http://www.industry.gov.au/research/MissionBasedCompacts/Documents/MissionBasedCompacts2011-
13/QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyCompact.doc. accessed 5/12/14

IV. DISCUSSING THE APPLICABILITY AND RELEVANCE OF THE IDENTIFIED CSFS
Having identified and described a relevant set of CSFs and outlined the case site the next stage is to
consider each CSF against this higher education organization to determine its relevance and applicability. This
was done using direct observations on site, documents analysis and semi-structured interviews with 10 key
informants, comprising senior IT and business managers across a range of enterprise functions and systems. We
retain the distinction introduced earlier between organizational and project CSFs and individual and technical
factors in order to group related CSFs for analysis and we reference our findings to the literature in this context.
In relation to CSFs concerning organizational support; and it is a truism to state that without top
management support major projects usually fail. This is particularly critical with enterprise systems adoption
since the decision is bigger than the IT department alone. In the QUT case this was evidenced by a proactive top
management decision to seek outside partners to help develop enterprise wide systems integration. Despite a
capable in-house IT section, integration was viewed at board level as being essential to support future growth.
The top management support CSF thus applies to the Higher Education Sector, as there is no reason to believe
there is anything special about the sector in this regard, especially as Australian Universities have been
corporatizing for some time.
Related organisational CSFs include visioning and planning, along with change management. Although
the construct of “management support” is variously defined in the literature it remains an organizational
responsibility to ensure these aspects are effectively done. Project planning follows from the visioning which
must be clear enough to specify a project mission and objectives, which can then turn into a detailed plan with
measurable outcomes as implementation proceeds and thus ensure alignment with strategic direction. In QUT‟s
case the need for integration among numerous disparate administrative systems was noted in the mid-1990s, by
its administrative systems coordinator "It was clear that a better vision was needed to enable the university to
attend to its core services and not devote inordinate resources to application development and maintenance"
(Wheelwright, 1999), and this recognition, coupled with strategic considerations about growth led top
management towards the initiatives described above.
QUT‟s current 5-year strategic plan (the Blueprint) reaffirms this: “Continue to integrate information
and communications technologies into our teaching, research, business support functions and infrastructure.
QUT recognises that this task will require a coherent and strategic approach to the allocation of resources and
deployment of new systems developments and applications” (p3). This priority is within the parameters of an
overall vision framed around terms such as “outstanding learning environments” and “high-impact research”.
Again, however, there is nothing sector-specific about a strategy to integrate core systems and having a plan to
support this.
A recognized challenge with IS interventions appearing on most CSF lists, change management is a
critical influence on successful adoption, and should be embedded into the project from the outset to avoid
underachievement of benefits (Gartner, 2014). The HE sector though is probably more recalcitrant than most in
this regard. “It‟s nice to obtain user buy in, but don‟t think you‟ll get a consensus at a university” and “At some
point shortly after completion of the (conference room pilot), you need to put a freeze on change. However, get
ready for objections from the functional side and users” indicate the experience of two CIOs implementing
ERPS in US Universities. (Swartz and Orgill, 2001). But change management goes far beyond technical change
or configuration requests and strikes at the heart of an organisation‟s culture and identity. Both academic users
and IT staff and the community of practice with which each identifies are affected.
In regards to project-related CSFs which are concerned with system and consultant selection, system
integration, training, communication plan and team composition as well as general project management around
these.
In Stewart‟s (2014) extensive study on UK higher education project management one respondent spoke
for several noting “In a very large University like [institution] … it would not make sense or be feasible to have
… a common project methodology. The absolutely key context is fitting with strategic aims and having senior
management support. (p55) ” This again validates the need for top management support in the higher education
sector, which applies at project ownership level as well as within organizational practices, but it also
acknowledges the heterogenous nature of a university and its range of subcultures and methods. In QUT project
management is done professionally, and while the PMF is useful as a standard, it is used flexibly across a wide
range of specific methodologies applied in different parts of the University. QUT apply a developed risk
management framework to manage risk as an integral part of project planning and execution, with a regularly
updated risk register.
In the late 1980s QUT realized a burgeoning need to integrate HR, finance and student administration
functions. A cross-functional team identified needs, particularly around resources and required support, and
evaluated vendor options for best fit using an evaluation matrix. QUT made a strategic choice to go for a best-
of-breed approach, (despite the extra integration work entailed) partly as no single solution then existed, but also
to have the flexibility to support QUT‟s unique business processes. The original student information system in

particular had to be built in-house as the associate IT director confirmed it was “not available”, and QUT is
currently using the TechnologyOne Student Management system for student and academic management. Oracle
(financials) and ALESCO (Human Resource) also supplied components, and with all QUT‟s vendors there is an
intent to work in long term partnerships. (QUT Director of Student Business Services ). This strategy has
persisted because the complex functionality of a university is not amenable to a single existing ERP solution,
and as technologies have aged or become unsupported and cloud solutions and social media platforms become
more attractive the integration of the current 100+ core enterprise applications remains beyond a single vendor
solution. QUT uses an explicit Enterprise Architecture model as a tool for planning and prioritization to help
achieve both strong ROI and ensure efficient business operations that are aligned to the blueprint.
Consultants are viewed as only for supplying supportive expertise within a QUT controlled
implementation. The associate director of IT felt it was important for QUT to maintain championship and
ownership, and to supplement as necessary with specialist labour or expertise, and noted QUTs approach
differed from other universities, some of which have been involved in complex arrangements ending in
litigation. It is notable that a similar university, RMIT in Melbourne, had a spectacular failure with
implementation of its Peoplesoft student administration, This is partly attributable to student admin functionality
not being mature “like finance and HR”, but a second reason for this failure, diagnosed in a Gartner report, was
a lack of communication between team members and a failure to adequately consider business processes before
implementation. (Watson, 2004) .
QUT has to do its own integration due to its best–of breed strategy and despite generally “working
well” various business managers and senior IT staff believe it can be “done better”. Many universities have
specific processes and unique systems that have not historically mapped to standard ERP modules (nor even to
those in other universities) and integrating these is a major challenge. Constellar Hub is an enterprise
application integration tool that was used for several years at QUT for what the associate director of IT has
called “active integration” beyond a simple point-to-point interface between applications. Constellar hub
extracts data and transforms it for data warehousing and associated analytic uses. Other universities such as
Princeton have also used Constellar hub to migrate and integrate various legacy applications, and this likely
reflects the range of distinct and unique applications requiring integrated management in the sector. When
QUTs Constellar hub was replaced with a service oriented architecture solution around 2011 the activity
completion report noted a successful completion of the project with all project benefits realised. There had been
a successful switch to a business process centric platform, rather than a business function or data centric one,
with all interfaces directly supporting this, also with an annual cost saving of $7000.
The recent direction has been towards a real time integration using a service oriented architecture such
that every touchpoint for the student system communicates both ways using web services. In the example given
by the Associate director of IT, a student obtaining an ID card expects all systems to “recognise him as a
student” so borrowing a library book immediately should be an option. This cannot be achieved with batched or
cycling run integration.
The team composition for the enterprise wide systems is fluid, with relevant skills deployed against
projects, backfilled as required and supported by consultants only when there is no in-house expertise. Training
is part of the implementation and maintenance phases as appropriate, with roadshows and other forms deployed
appropriate to specific applications. Training resources and activities are also organised through a dedicated
communications team which forms part of the Division for Technology, Information and Learning Support
which provides central IT services and support.
Communication is understood within the IT services team and its project managers, with explicit
communication plans implemented and reported against projects. A central project registry using a traffic lights
system records risk assessment and project status issues quarterly, together with self-critical comments listed by
project. Issues concerning communication are one field mandated in this report. Sampling these reports shows
that most projects consider the effectiveness of their communications with stakeholders both for business
requirements gathering and appropriate scheduling of status communications.
Communication for some projects must go beyond a (monthly) update as transparency is required for
academic stakeholders who may not appreciate what a project involves in terms of BPR. For example the
division of research requested several e-forms to be developed but scope was reduced to two only, of which one
(an e-form to nominate an examiner) might seem to be a simple digitisation of a paper form, down- and up-
loadable by the academic responsible for the nomination. The Project Portfolio Office comment however on this
item notes “eForm development can be resource intensive, depending on the requirements re business processes,
automation, workflow, approvals etc. (The Resources and Projects Subcommittee has) made recent
recommendations to projects undertaking eForm development that business process and policy review and
improvement should take place prior to design and development to improve overall project outcomes.” In a
university there are numerous issues and policies around examination, including secrecy of nominations,
number of nominees in the set, approval of examiner‟s appropriate qualifications, and levels of approval within

the University, deadlines soft and hard, admissibility of (e.g. a PhD) candidate‟s own suggestions and
declaration of any relationship etc and every university will have its own unique process for this seemingly
simple activity.
This illustrates the relationship between BPR and customisation to unique processes in the higher
education sector, which is possibly the most critical of the CSFs for the sector, assuming the others are
professionally managed. Although classed as technology related, experience shows that business practices
developed around legacy systems can cause the biggest challenge to a successful enterprise system
implementation, and despite a product‟s configurability, they can still contain many non-modifiable
functionalities that may or may not be applicable in a particular university (Yakovlev, 2001) .
Customisation is generally considered undesirable in enterprise systems, due to increased time and
cost, introducing new bugs and risking incompatibility with future upgrades, requiring continual re-
customisation. “Best practices” from industry are often inappropriate for universities and QUT has taken a
pragmatic approach to this issue. Historically many in-house customisations had been required as workarounds
to packaged software, but QUT sought to minimise this over time. With its ERP implementations QUT worked
with the vendors to modify the generic package, ensuring smooth upgrades and vendor responsibility for correct
functionality, and ongoing contracted maintenance. QUT was proactive in the research, development and go live
of functionality unique to the sector, and when vendors saw this working and realised other HES customers
needed similar functionality they incorporated it in their core product. One example was a Building and
Engineering Information Management System implemented at QUT in 2005, and as one of the first universities
to adopt such a system extensive customisation was required. The BEIMS IT manager responsible commented
that as a large client QUT had “some influence” in making customised functionality core in later versions, as
vendors discovered that other universities also required this. This is QUTs general strategy on customisation,
whereby having shown technical capability to vendors, new functionality is developed in partnership, ideally
ensuring fit for QUT together with ongoing maintenance from the vendors. QUT actively gains support for
“good ideas” from other universities. If a vendor will not do the development QUT explores sharing that effort
with other Universities, or obtaining government funding. In this way functionality is developed that fits the
sector‟s common processes.
The individual-related factors listed by Ram and Corkindale (2014) generally refer to technology
acceptance measures and user variables. They also list a set of CSFs that have been associated with post-
implementation performance outcomes in specific studies, some of which are also associated with
implementation success. Success is variously constructed in studies in terms of, for example, financial benefit,
effective decision making, operational benefits, and user satisfaction. Such measures or KPIs are specific to
organisational priorities, and not one in itself qualifies as a generic critical success factor. These may be
considered sub-factors of a more general CSF – post-implementation evaluation, which takes into account both
technical performance and user impacts and acceptance.
Post-implementation evaluation is a neglected area of the ERP lifecycle but remains a critical success
factor. In the HES the few studies that have examined this aspect have used localised balanced scorecard
methods but finding a suitable and well-defined metric given an ERP‟s overall complexity and range of
stakeholders. Identifying the range of benefits in terms of infrastructure, operations, management etc and
devising suitable measures is required.
QUT, like many other organisations, conducts no systematic evaluation of their systems, but recognise
the value of this in general. Comments from the business managers of various applications confirmed that if a
“well-defined approach” existed they would be keen to measure impacts. They tended to assume that if they
didn't “hear complaints from (users)” the system was working well. A major problem in the sector was the
diversity and uniqueness of implicated stakeholders making it difficult to identify representative groups.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we deliberately chose a specific set of CSFs which distinguishes major organization-
related factors (e.g. top management support), project-related factors (e.g. training) technological-related factors
(e.g. customization) and individual-related factors (e.g. post-implementation evaluation) to identify a core set of
11 CSFs. This core set has been informed by original studies of leading IS journals and database sources by the
first author (Rabaa‟i, 2009), and more recently by Kalema et al, (2014). This core set was then tested, for
applicability and relevance, in the HES using a case study of a leading Australian university.
Several of the CSFs suggested as relevant in the literature were not suited to QUT and we argue to the
HES in general. These were the technologically-related ones, as this is sector neutral - the business imperatives
common in commercial enterprises do not apply to HES. The Organisational-related factors make the difference
– a successful technical implementation without a successful user implementation means a failed project. The
organizational side of project management, particularly selecting the right project manager and thoughtful
change management appear to be the most critical aspects and those without an insider appreciation of the

values held dear in the HES cannot be expected to successfully impose corporately originate and standardized
disciplines to largely diverse and autonomous groups who intrinsically value decentralization, their community
of practice norms and processes and collegiate culture.
ERP adoption instigates changes that attack an organisation‟s identity. Processes become formalized
and measured in ways inappropriate to their traditional nature – in Universities teaching and research are
knowledge-intensive and creative functions whose effectiveness cannot simply be “managed” by imposing a 9-5
discipline and setting productivity KPIs at micro-levels. Although ERPs in HE seem to focus on administrative
support more than their incursion into the core business of teaching and research, academic users are critically
involved in individual decisions on enrolment, assessment, progression, grade norming, course equivalence and
many other administrative aspects, as well as creating, discovering, sharing and developing ideas that do not
necessarily fit with institutional timetables, accountability regimes, a reduced set of managerially approved
tangible output forms or an imposed set of approved outlets for measuring research productivity. In the MIT
case there were many exceptions made to central administration rules, that no overarching process could be
identified (Seo, 2013) and most HE institutions would surely say the same. IT staff too may have a significant
learning overhead, an inadequate budget for the training required, an extra learning curve (with an ongoing
dependence on consultants) significant extra work necessitated while legacy systems remain critical. As a result,
we argue that commercially-focused ERPs rarely serve well the flexibility essential to being an effective
knowledge worker in this sector.
Other enterprise systems from smaller players offer solutions that, whilst still corporate in focus, have
been designed for the sector rather than “configured” from a generic monolith. One such is Banner (which is
implemented, for example, at the American University of Kuwait (AUK), and also Zayed University in the
UAE) with a range of modules for student management, finance and HR. Case studies on their site detail
successful recent implementations, with functionality appreciated by faculty. In Saudi Arabia, a locally
developed ERP, Madar, proved successful and change management was handled thoroughly . Although perhaps
with less marketing resources more studies on such solutions may suggest the path to better success for ERPs in
the HE sector.
Corporatizing HES through enforcing efficient “best business practices” is a limited conceptualization
given the nature of the sector. Certainly efficiency is desirable and several CSFs proved relevant in HES –
mainly in efficient service delivery, IT support, easier access to reliable information by integrating disparate
legacy systems and reengineered business processes, and data integrity. But practices targeting performance
measure based on a misunderstanding of the nature of academic work were seen as less relevant and
inappropriate to apply in the HE sector.
Our experience in other universities anecdotally suggests our findings would generalize but this is
beyond the scope of the present papers design. However we plan to replicate this in other universities and
cultures to validate that our case is not exceptional, and through more specific hypothesis testing as our findings
become validated, identify a tested set of CSFs relevant to the HES more widely.
Finally, CSFs studies have been criticised because it is felt that the approach relied on the opinions of
managers only and it was, therefore, biased (Davis, 1980). Munro and Wheeler (1980) responded to this
suggested weakness in the CSF approach by identifying a method that would incorporate the ideas of senior
middle managers in determining information requirements. Similarly, Boynton and Zmud (1984) suggested that
a cross-section of management be interviewed, so that all levels would be incorporated. Even when these
weaknesses are addressed, the CSF approach, nevertheless, can still be biased and requires that an interviewer
possess advanced skills (Munro, 1983) and that there be careful application of the technique (Boynton and
Zmud, 1984). Hence, one of our future studies will investigate how the perceived relative importance, of these
factors, may differ across different implementation stakeholders (i.e. different employment cohorts) such as top
executives, end-users, project team members, technical users, and consultants.
REFERENCES
[1] Ahmad, M.M., Pinedo-Cuenca, R (2013) Critical success factors for ERP implementation in SMEs, Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, Volume 29, Issue 3, June 2013, Pages 104-111.
[2] Aladwani, A.M. (2001), “Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation”, Business Process Management
Journal, (7), p. 266.
[3] Al Kilani B, Adlouni S, Al Ahbabi S and Al Yahyaei Z (2013) ERP Systems in Arab Education Sector: Towards Improved
Implementation and UtilizationInAlbadri F Information Systems Applications in the Arab Education Sector, IRMA, Hershey PA
[4] Allen, D. and Kern, T. (2001), “Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation: Stories of Power, Politics and Resistance”, Paper
presented at the IFIP Working Group 8.2 Conference on Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development:
The Social and Organisational Perspective, Boise, Idaho, USA.

[5] Al-Mashari, M. and Al-Mudimigh, A. (2003).“ERP implementation: lessons from a case study”, Information Technology and
People, (16:1), pp. 21-33.
[6] Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: a taxonomy of critical factors”, European
Journal of Operational Research, (146), pp. 352-64
[7] Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2004). ERP implementation factors. Business Process Management, 10(2), 171-183.
[8] Ash, C.G. and Burn, J.M. (2003). “A strategic framework for the management of ERP enabled e-business change”, The
international Journal of Operational Research, (146), pp. 374-387.
[9] Azevedo, PS Romão,MRebelo, E, (2013) Advantages, Limitations and Solutions in the Use of ERP Systems (Enterprise
Resource Planning) – A Case Study in the Hospitality Industry, Procedia Technology, 5, 2012, Pages 264-272
[10] Bajwa, D.S., Garcia, J.E. and Mooney, T. (2004), “An integrative framework for the assimilation of enterprise resource planning
systems: phases, antecedents, and outcomes”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, (44), pp. 81-90
[11] Beekhuyzen, J., Goodwin, M., and Nielsen, J. L. (2002), “ERP in universities: The Australian explosion”, Proceedings of the
13th Australian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS). Melbourne, Australia
[12] Beekhuyzen, J (2006) ERP Quality: Do Individual Users Matter? An Australian case In Duggan, E. &Reichgelt J (Eds)
Measuring Information Systems Delivery Quality. Pennsylvania: Idea Group Publishing pp. 328-345
[13] Beheshti, H. (2006), „What managers should know about ERP/ERP II‟, Management research News, (29:4), pp. 184-193
[14] Benders, J., Batenburg, R., & Van der Blonk, H. (2006).Sticking to standards; technical and other isomorphic pressures in
deploying ERP-systems. Information &Management , 43, 194-203.
[15] Bernroider, E., and Koch, S. (2001). “ERP Selection Process in Midsize and Large Organisations”, Business Process
Management, (7:3), pp. 251 – 257
[16] Bingi, P., Sharma, M.K. and Godla, J. (1999), “Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation”, Information Systems
Management, pp. 7-14.
[17] Brown, P. (2002), „Rocky road to hi-tech admin‟. The Australian. Sydney, p. 20
[18] Bhatti T.R. (2005) Critical Success Factors for the Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): Empirical
Validation. The 2nd
International Conference on Innovation in Information Technology (IIT‟05) 1-10
[19] Boynton, A.C. and Zmud, R.W. (1984), “An assessment of critical success factors”, Sloan Management Review (pre-1986), (25),
p. 17
[20] Chang, H (2012) 'The identification of critical success factors for quality internal IT services in public sector organisations in
Hong Kong', DBA thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.
[21] Chen, I.J. (2001), “Planning for ERP systems: analysis and future trend”, Business Process
a. Management Journal, (7), p. 374.
[22] Columbus, L. (2014) Gartner's ERP Market Share Update Shows: The Future Of Cloud ERP
Is Now.http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2014/05/12/gartners-erp-market-share-update-shows-the-future-of-cloud-erp-
is-now/ (accessed 1/12/2014)
[23] Cunningham, S., Tapsall, S., Ryan, Y. Stedman, L. Bagdon, K., and Flew, T. (1998), New media and borderless education: A
review of the convergence between global media networks and higher education provision. Evaluations and Investigations
Program, Higher Education Division, Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, AGPS.
[24] Davenport, T.H. (1998), “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 121-31.
[25] Davis, G.B. (1980), “From our readers”, MIS Quarterly, 4, p. 69.
[26] Davison R (2002) Cultural complications of ERP Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45 No. 7, Pages 109-111 DOI:
10.1145/514236.514267
[27] Dezdar, S., &Ainin, S. (2011).The influence of organizational factors on successful ERP implementation. Management Decision,
49(6), 911-926.
[28] Economist, The (2013) Why do Americans mistrust for-profit universities? http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2013/07/economist-explains-0 Author
[29] Ehie, I., and Madsen, M. (2005).“Identifying critical issues in enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation”, Computers in
Industry, (56), pp. 545-557.
[30] Finney, S and Corbett, M (2007).“ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical success factors”` Business Process
Management Journal 13(3), pp. 329-347.
[31] Harris B (2014) Corporatisation, Managerialism and the Death of the University Ideal in Australia' Journal of Politics and Law,
7:2 63
[32] Holland, C. and Light, B. (1999), “A critical success factors model for ERP implementation”, IEEE Software, (16), p. 30.
[33] Holland, P., Light, B. and Gibson, N. (1999), “A critical success factors model for enterprise resource planning implementation”,
Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Systems
[34] Hong, K-K.and Kim, Y-G. (2002), “The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective”,
Information & Management, (40), p. 25.
[35] Gargeya, V. B., & Brady, C. (2005). Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP system implementation. Business
Process Management Journal, 11 (5), 501-516
[36] Grabski, S., and Leech, S. (2007). “Complementary controls and ERP implementation success”, International Journal of
Accounting Information Systems, (8:1), pp. 17-39
[37] Gartner (2014) ERP Projects: Managing Organizational Change Is Critical for Success. Gartner Group report G00262620 May.
[38] Hedman, J., and Borell, A. (2004). „Naratives in ERP Systems Evaluation‟, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
(17:4), pp. 283 – 290
[39] Heiskanen, A. Newman, M. Similä, J. (2000) The social dynamics of software development, Accounting, Management and
Information Technologies, 10(1), January Pages 1-32.
[40] Jackson, S (2011) Organizational culture and information systems adoption: A three-
a. perspective approach, Information and Organization, 21(2), 57-83,
b. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.03.003.
[41] Kalema, Billy Mathias BM Dr; Olugbara, Oludayo O. Prof; and Kekwaletswe, Ray M. Prof (2014) "Identifying Critical Success
Factors: the case of ERP Systems in Higher Education," The African Journal of Information Systems, 6(3), Article 1. Available
at: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/ajis/vol6/iss3/1
[42] Kim, Y., Lee, Z., &Gosain, S. (2005). Impediments to successful ERP implementation process. Business Process
Management Journal, 11(2), 158-170.

[43] Kraemmergaard, P. and Rose, J. (2002), “Managerial competences for ERP journeys”, Information Systems Frontiers, (4), p.
199.
[44] KRIGSMAN M (2013) 2013 ERP RESEARCH: COMPELLING ADVICE FOR THE CFO HTTP://WWW.ZDNET.COM/2013-ERP-RESEARCH-
COMPELLING-ADVICE-FOR-THE-CFO-7000011619/
[45] Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B. and Kumar, U. (2002), “ERP systems implementation: best practices in Canadian government
organizations”, Government Information Quarterly, (19), pp. 147-72.
[46] Laughlin, S.P. (1999), “An ERP game plan”, Journal of Business Strategy, 20(1), pp. 32-37.
[47] Light, B. (2001). “The Maintenance Implications of Customization of ERP Software”, Journal of Software Maintenance and
Evolution: Research and Practice, (13), pp.415-429
[48] Mabert, V.A., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M.A. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: managing the implementation
process”, European Journal of Operational Research, (146), p. 302
[49] Madden, J. (2002), Software system a flop, but RMIT has ways of covering costs, The Australian, Sydney, Australia, 24.04.02,
Higher Education, pp. 31.
[50] Mahrer, H. (1999), “SAP R/3 implementation at the ETH Zurich: A higher education management success story”, Proceedings of
the 5th American Conference on Information Systems. Milwaukee, WI.
[51] Mandal, P. and Gunasekaran, A. (2003), “Issues in implementing ERP: a case study”, European Journal of Operational Research,
(146), pp. 274-83
[52] McConachie, J. (2001), „The effect of sub-cultures on the implementation of an enterprise system: An Australian regional
university perspective‟. Learning Technologies 2001.South Pacific Resort, Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
[53] Motwani, J., Mirchandani, D., Madan, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (2002), “Successful implementation of ERP projects: evidence
from two case studies”, International Journal of Production Economics, (75), p. 83.
[54] Munro, M.C. (1983), “An opinion . . . comment on critical success factors at work”, MIS Quarterly, (7), pp. 67-8
[55] MUSSELIN, C. (2005). CHANGE OR CONTINUITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE? IN I. BLEIKLIE, & M. HENKEL (EDS.),
GOVERNING KNOWLEDGE (PP. 65-80). AMSTERDAM: SPRINGER CITED IN HARRIS Q.V.
[56] Nah, F., and Delgado, S. (2006). „Critical success factors for enterprise resource planning implementation and upgrade‟, The
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(55), pp. 99-113
[57] Nah, F. F., Janet Lee-Shang Lau, &Kuang, J. (2001). Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems.
Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 285-296.
[58] Ngai, E.W.T., Law, C.C.H., & Wat, F.K.T. (2008).Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise resource
planning.Computers in Industry. (59)6, 548-564.
[59] Nielsen, JL Beekhuyzen, J & Goodwin M (2005) The Evolution of Enterprise Wide Systems within Australian Higher Education
in Von Hellens, L. Nielsen S and Beekhuyzen, J. (Eds). (2005) Qualitative Case Studies on Implementation of Enterprise Wide
Systems. Hershey PA
[60] Noble F, Newman M. (1993) Integrated system, autonomous departments: organizational invalidity and system change in a
university. Journal Of Management Studies, March 1993;30(2):195-219. Accessed February 9, 2015.
[61] Oliver, D. and Romm, C. (2000), “Issues in university administration systems: A regional Australian case”. Proceeding of the
15th Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management (IAIM). Brisbane, Australia
[62] Palaniswamy, R. and Frank, T.G. (2002), “Oracle ERP and network computing architecture: implementation and performance”,
Information Systems Management, (19), p. 53.
[63] PAWLOWSIKI, S. AND BOUDREAU, M. (1999), “CONSTRAINTS AND FLEXIBILITY IN ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS: A DIALECTIC OF SYSTEM AND
JOB”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICANS CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS (AMICS), MILWAUKEE, WI, USA
[64] POLLOCK, N., &CORNFORD, J. (2004).ERP SYSTEMS AND THE UNIVERSITY AS A "UNIQUE" ORGANISATION. INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY & PEOPLE,17(1), 31-52.
[65] Rabaa'i, A. (2009). Identifying critical success factors of ERP Systems at the higher education sector. Paper presented at the
Third International Symposium on Innovation in Information & Communication Technology (ISIICT, 15 - 17 December, 2009),
Philadelphia University, Amman, Jordan.
[66] RABAA'I, AHMAD A., BANDARA, WASANA, &GABLE, GUY (2009) ERP SYSTEMS IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR: A
DESCRIPTIVE STUDY. IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH AUSTRALASIAN CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS, MONASH
UNIVERSITY: CAULFIELD CAMPUS, MELBOURNE, PP. 456-470
[67] RABAA'I, AHMAD A.&GAMMACK, JOHN (2008) A HICCUP OR A RIFT?ERP IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS IN JORDAN. IN CATAC08 :
CULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION 2008, 24-27 JUNE 2008, NÎMES, FRANCE.
[68] RAM J &CORKINDALE, D. (2014): HOW "CRITICAL" ARE THE CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS (CSFS)?: EXAMINING THE ROLE OF CSFS
FOR ERP BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 20.1 151-174.
[69] RAM J, CORKINDALE, D. & WU M-L, (2013) IMPLEMENTATION CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS (CSFS) FOR ERP: DO THEY
CONTRIBUTE TO IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS AND POST-IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE?, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, VOLUME 144, ISSUE 1, JULY 2013, PAGES 157-174.
[70] ROBEY, D., ROSS, J.W. AND BOUDREAU, M-C. (2002), “LEARNING TO IMPLEMENT ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS: AN EXPLORATORY
STUDY OF THE DIALECTICS OF CHANGE”, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, (19), P. 17
[71] Rockart, J. F. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review, 81-93.
[72] Rosario, J.G. (2000), “On the leading edge: critical success factors in ERP implementation projects”, BusinessWorld, Philippines
[73] Ross, J.W. and Vitale, M.R. (2000), “The ERP revolution: surviving vs thriving”, Information Systems Frontiers, (2), p. 233
[74] Sarker, S. and Lee, A.S. (2003), “Using a case study to test the role of three key social enablers in ERP implementation”,
Information & Management, (40), p. 813.
[75] Seo, G. (2013). Challenges in implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) system in large organizations: similarities and
differences between corporate and university environment (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
[76] Shanks, G., Parr, A., Hu, B., Corbitt, B., Thanasankit, T., and Seddon, P. (2000). “Difference in critical success factors in ERP
systems implementation in Australia and China: A cultural analysis”, Processdings of the 8th
European Conference on
Information Systems, Vienna, Austria, pp.537-544

[77] SHANG, S., & SEDDON, P. B. (2000).A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR CLASSIFYING THE BENEFITS OF ERP SYSTEMS.AMCIS
2000 PROCEEDINGS, 39.
[78] SHAUL, L. AND TAUBER, D. 2013. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEMS: REVIEW OF THE
LAST DECADE. ACM COMPUT. SURV.45, 4, ARTICLE 55 (AUGUST 2013), 39 PAGES. DOI:
HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1145/2501654.2501669
[79] Shehab, E.M, Sharp, M.W, Supramaniam, L., and Spedding, T.A. (2004). “Enterprise resource planning- An integrative review”,
Business Process Management, (10: 4), pp. 359-386
[80] Siriginidi, S.R. (2000a), “Enterprise resource planning: business needs and technologies”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, (100), p. 81
[81] Siriginidi, S.R. (2000b), “Enterprise resource planning in reengineering business”, Business Process Management Journal, (6), p.
376.
[82] Siau, K. (2004). “Enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation methodologies”, Journal of Database Management, (15:1),
pp. i-vi
[83] Skok, W., &Legge, M. (2002).Evaluating enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems using an interpretive approach. SIG-
CPR2001 Conference on "The IT Personnel Crisis: Finding and Retaining the Skilled Workforce", (pp. 189-197). San Diego,
CA, USA
[84] SOJA, P. (2008). EXAMINING THE CONDITIONS OF ERP IMPLEMENTATIONS: LESSONS LEARNT FROM ADOPTERS. BUSINESS
PROCESS MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 14(1), 105-123. DOI:HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1108/14637150810849445
[85] Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K. (2001), “The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning
implementations”, Proceeding of the 34th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii
[86] Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K.G. (2004), “A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP project life cycle”, Information &
Management, (41), pp. 257-78
[87] SNIDER, B., GIOVANI JC, D. S., &BALAKRISHNAN, J. (2009). ERP IMPLEMENTATION AT SMES: ANALYSIS OF FIVE CANADIAN
CASES. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, 29(1), 4-29.
DOI:HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1108/01443570910925343.
[88] Stewart A J (2014) Driving forward organisational performance in UK Higher Education through effective Project Management
practices MSC. Thesis University of Northumbria.
[89] STRATMAN, J.K. AND ROTH, A.V. (2002), “ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) COMPETENCE CONSTRUCTS: TWO-STAGE
MULTI-ITEM SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION”, DECISION SCIENCES, (33), P. 601.
[90] SUMNER, M. (1999). CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN ENTERPRISE WIDE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PROJECT.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIGCPR. NEW ORLEANS, LA, USA.
[91] Swartz D. &Orgill K (2001) Higher Education ERP: Lessons Learned. EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY • Number 2 2001, 20-27
[92] TAPP, R HESSELDENZ, J MOREFIELD, L & KELLEY G (2005) ERP AND NEW ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITIES: THE EXAMPLE OF THE
KENTUCKY COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM. IN VON HELLENS (Q.V.) (PAGES 57-70).
[93] TARAFDAR, M. AND ROY, R.K. (2003), “ANALYSING THE ADOPTION OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEMS IN INDIAN
ORGANIZATIONS: A PROCESS FRAMEWORK”, JOURNAL OF GLOBAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, (6), P. 31
[94] TRIMMER, K.J., PUMPHREY, L.D. AND WIGGINS, C. (2002), “ERP IMPLEMENTATION IN RURAL HEALTH CARE”, JOURNAL OF
MANAGEMENT IN MEDICINE, (16), P. 113.
[95] Umble, E. and Umble, M. (2002).“Avoiding ERP implementation failure”, Industrial Management, (44:1), pp.25- 33.
[96] Umble, E.J., Haft, R.R. and Umble, M.M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: implementation procedures and critical success
factors”, European Journal of Operational Research, (146), pp. 241-57.
[97] Verville, J., &Bernadas, C. (2005). So you‟re thinking of buying an ERP? Ten critical factors for successful acquisitions. Journal
of Enterprise Information Management, 18(6), 665-677.
[98] Von Hellens, L. and Beekhuyzen, J. (Eds).(2005) Qualitative Case Studies on Implementation of Enterprise Wide Systems.
Hershey.
[99] Voordijk, H., Leuven, A.V. and Laan, A. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning in a large construction firm: implementation
analysis”, Construction Management and Economics, (21), p. 511
[100] Wee, S. (2000), “Juggling toward ERP success: keep key success factors high”, ERP News, February, available
http://www.erpnews.com/erpnews/erp904/02get.html.
[101] Wheelwright, G. (1999) ERP role on campuses is gaining momentum. Financial Times [London (UK)] 26 May 1999: 08.
[102] Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A. and Abthorpe, M.S. (2004), “Enterprise information systems project implementation: a case study of
ERP in Rolls-Royce”, International Journal of Production Economics, (87), pp. 251-66
[103] ZENG, Y., LU, Y., &SKIBNIEWSKI, M. (2012).ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEMS FOR PROJECT-BASED FIRMS:
BENEFITS, COSTS & IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES. JOURNAL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PERFORMANCE, INFORMATION &
VALUE, 4(1).
[104] Ziemba E &Oblak I (2013) Critical Success Factors for ERP Systems: Implementation in Public Administration.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management Volume 8, 2013.

Success Factors for Enterprise Systems in the Higher Education Sector: A Case Study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Success Factors for Enterprise Systems in the Higher Education Sector: A Case Study

Similar to Success Factors for Enterprise Systems in the Higher Education Sector: A Case Study (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Success Factors for Enterprise Systems in the Higher Education Sector: A Case Study